Yeah, I meant that you can't say it outside of the school. If you do, a typical reaction is: "If you don't like children, you are not a good teacher." Because it is assumed that if you like children, you would never say anything with a negative connotation; and if you don't like them, you are a psychopath and should be kept far away from them.

So, either the children are perfect, which means that if they don't get good grades, you are a bad teacher; or you disagree that the children are perfect, which proves that you are a bad teacher. -- The only way to signal that you are a good teacher, is to give best grades to everyone. Some teachers use this strategy, knowingly or not.

Mine too, and I know quite a few of them. They aren't shy about it -- the PC-ness has been thoroughly beaten out of them by experience.

Instead, a neutral language such as "genetically disadvantaged" should be available for accurate and objective use

This is part of why euphemisms are so dangerous - they are often phrases which aren't accurate. Intelligence is not just genetic. Parasite load at an early age, nutrition, lead exposure, some aspects of parental care can all impact intelligence.

People who inherited or "won" more intelligence early on should NOT be raised atop the goddamn miserable status heap by the sole "virtue" of said intelligence

Are they though? This has a lot to do with what one means by status. If anything we have the opposite problem. Look at how many people use "I could never do math" or similar statements as a status raiser.

This is just one incident of many that convince me that the anti-PC crowd is low-status largely not because they tell inconvenient truths (although the brightest among them sure do), but because they are unwilling to learn basic social skills.

If you think the "anti-PC crowd" is low status that may say more about who you spend time with than anything else. In much of the US, even in fairly left-wing areas, self-identifying as not PC can be quite effective as a status raiser. People who go out of their way to be "anti-PC" might be low status but that's more because that often involves high degrees of obnoxiousness, is often a cover for genuine bigotry (e.g.someone claiming that their use of the word "kike" is because of their refusal to be be PC), and are defining themselves as against something else. It is very hard to be high status when one is defined in terms of one's opposition. But that's all distinct from being blunt and saying "stupid" when one means some form of "intelligence substantially below the average or the level generally necessary to function in society".

And because they have a number of... ethically shaky aspects about their thought.

What is ethically shaky here? That there are genuinely stupid people? That we should acknowledge it? That some of that is genetic?

What, you never heard of a euphemism treadmill? Choose any "neutral term" you like as a synonym for "stupid"; there's no kid in the world so "genetically disadvantaged" that they won't realise what you actually meant to say. You do know that 'retarded' was once a perfectly neutral term, right? It literally just means "slower than the others". It acquired its modern connotations because changing the word doesn't change the phenomenon and doesn't change the way people react, either.

You just shouldn't say it at all. Unless they really are 100% 0 variance, not one in a million people with their brains will learn it trying their hardest you shouldn't say this in public because it might damage their chances. Stupid is especially bad because it's more general than you need to be. If someone has a brain that has some poor cognitive abilities, but others that are normal or good (specifically, I am talking about almost everyone) they shouldn't be told they are stupid for doing below average in some area because stupid is a general term.. "Stupidness" is often limited to a particular area.

When is it an advantage to the person being talked about to hear that they are fundamentally incapable of doing something over hearing that it is not worth their trying to do it?

Also, stupid and genetically disadvantaged are not synonyms.

What makes you think the anti-PC crowd is low-status? That doesn't ring a bell. I have no strong belief either way.

also, do you really think this is an accurate reflection of reality? "because they are unwilling to learn basic social skills." It's fine if you just wanted to have a go, but X is experiencing negative outcome Y "because they are unwilling to learn" is much more often claimed than is true. It's just so convenient and just world-ey. Also, "social skills" may in this case actually consist solely of deference to majority opinion.

they are unwilling to learn basic social skills.

Kind of you to avoid just saying "assholes." But then you would've been a hypocrite.